830 S.E.2d 711
S.C. Ct. App.2019Background
- On May 7–8, 2016, Facebook direct messages from an account using the name “Ruby Rina” invited 17‑year‑old Edwin Diaz Charinos (Victim) to 108 Queens Circle; Victim disappeared after that invitation and his burned remains were later found beside his Mustang.
- Police accessed Victim’s Facebook (Victim’s father had the password) and recovered prints of the messages; investigators found blood and matching bedding at 108 Queens Circle and charged Fabian Lamichael R. Green, Karina Galarza (a/k/a "Ruby Rina"), and Davian Holman with murder.
- At trial, Holman testified Galarza used the Facebook name “Ruby Rina” and described events placing Green and Galarza at the scene; forensic evidence tied Victim to the blood and remains; Holman implicated Green in the killing.
- Over Green’s hearsay and authentication objections, the court admitted printouts of the Facebook messages as co‑conspirator statements; the State also introduced a jail letter from Green admitting involvement (Green testified the letter was false).
- After deliberations the jury returned guilty verdicts; shortly thereafter, defense learned a bailiff had told a juror that the judge might give an Allen charge and ask them to stay late if deadlocked; the court questioned jurors individually, found no extraneous influence, and denied Green’s mistrial motion.
- Green appealed, arguing (1) insufficient authentication of the Facebook messages and (2) bailiff misconduct requiring a mistrial; the appellate court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Green's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authentication of Facebook messages | The messages were not properly authenticated—accounts could be hacked or fabricated and neither sender nor recipient testified to authorship | Circumstantial evidence (screen name “Ruby Rina,” references to Karina/Julissa, timing, invitation to 108 Queens Circle, and facts known only to Galarza/Victim) sufficed under Rule 901(b)(4) | Affirmed: low prima facie Rule 901 standard met; messages admissible for jury determination |
| Bailiff’s comments to a juror (request for mistrial) | Bailiff’s remark about an Allen charge coerced verdict and tainted jury impartiality; Remmer presumption of prejudice applies | Although Remmer presumption applies, State proved no reasonable possibility the comment influenced verdict: only the foreperson likely heard it, no evidence of deadlock, comment was non‑factual and non‑coercive, and jurors denied extraneous influence | Affirmed: trial court did not abuse discretion in denying mistrial; State overcame Remmer presumption |
Key Cases Cited
- Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227 (1954) (presumption of prejudice from private communication with juror; government must prove harmlessness)
- Parker v. Gladden, 385 U.S. 363 (1966) (bailiff’s remarks can violate Sixth Amendment when they inject outside influence)
- United States v. Davis, 918 F.3d 397 (4th Cir. 2019) (prima facie standard for authorship under Rule 901)
- United States v. Hassan, 742 F.3d 104 (4th Cir. 2014) (social media authentication via IP/email evidence)
- United States v. Siddiqui, 235 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2000) (emails authenticated by distinctive content referencing defendant)
- State v. Hightower, 221 S.C. 91 (1952) (circumstantial authentication by tenor and subject‑matter of a writing)
- State v. Kelly, 331 S.C. 132 (1998) (number of jurors exposed to improper communication relevant to prejudice)